Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
5 November 2024

Perceptions of indirect treatment comparisons as an evidence base in oncology decision-making: results of an international survey of health technology assessment and payer decision-makers

Authors: Ioannis Katsoulis [email protected], Alex Graham, Allison Thompson, Norbek Gharibian, Vivek Pawar, Vivek Khurana, Rui Ferreira, Abhishek Panikar, and Mairead KearneyAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 13, Number 11
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0040
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations are often faced with early decision-making in oncology. To design and conduct robust indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), it is important to better understand HTA and payer decision-maker perceptions of ITCs. Here we aim to describe what individuals with HTA and payer experience see as the acceptability of ITCs for HTA and payer organization coverage and reimbursement decision-making. Materials & methods: This survey included 30 current and former HTA and payer decision-makers from five countries: Australia, France, Germany, the UK (n = 5 each) and the US (n = 10). Main outcomes included the ratings of acceptance of ITCs and the presence of well-defined methodological guidance for ITCs. Results: ITCs are generally accepted by participants in Australia and the UK but are more likely evaluated on a case-by-case basis in France, Germany and the US. Four of five participants in Germany and the UK, two of five in Australia and one of five in France reported that well-defined and prescribed criteria regarding the use of ITCs were in place. Conclusion: There is a need for harmonization of methods used to assess ITCs by HTA and payers, especially in the rapidly evolving treatment landscape in oncology.

Shareable abstract

This survey of health technology assessment and payer organizations from five countries highlights the importance of harmonizing methods for indirect treatment comparisons for oncology treatments

Plain language summary

Survey of health technology assessment agencies and payer organizations from five countries about indirect treatment comparisons for cancer treatments.

What is the article about?

People who work for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and payer organizations often make decisions about paying for or recommending new cancer treatments. To make these decisions, they need to evaluate how the risks and benefits of new treatments compare with existing treatments. Results from head-to-head clinical studies are the preferred source of information when making these decisions. However, when head-to-head studies are limited or not available, a method called an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) can be used to compare the effectiveness and safety of different treatments. This study surveyed 30 people who have worked for HTA and payer organizations from five countries (Australia, France, Germany, the UK and the US) to find out their opinions about using ITCs to make decisions about treatment coverage and reimbursement.

What were the results of the study?

People from Australia and the UK were likely to accept results from ITCs. People from France, Germany and the US were willing to consider results from ITCs on a case-by-case basis. Four of five people in Germany, four of five people in the UK, two of five in Australia and one of five in France said that the current criteria for ITCs were well defined.

What did the study conclude?

Our study highlights the importance of harmonizing methods for ITCs, particularly for cancer treatments.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary table 1.docx)
File (supplementary table 2.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14(4), 417–428 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• A report from the ISPOR Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force that provides guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analyses to aid policymakers and healthcare professionals in their decision-making.
2.
Lebioda A, Gasche D, Dippel FW, Theobald K, Plantör S. Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland. Health Econ. Rev. 4(1), 31 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Describes the methodology of indirect comparisons and their requirements in Germany, England, France and Scotland. They concluded that it would be desirable to have a transparent process for indirect treatment comparisons that is also accepted by many health technology assessment agencies.
3.
Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials – the gold standard for effectiveness research: study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG 125(13), 1716 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Cave A, Kurz X, Arlett P. Real-world data for regulatory decision making: challenges and possible solutions for Europe. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 106(1), 36–39 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Kiefer C, Sturtz S, Bender R. Indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 112(47), 803–808 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Macabeo B, Quenéchdu A, Aballéa S, François C, Boyer L, Laramée P. Methods for indirect treatment comparison: results from a systematic literature review. J. Mark. Access Health Policy. 12(2), 58–80 (2024).
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 50(6), 683–691 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Describes the methodology of indirect treatment comparisons and its application.
8.
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 350, h217 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa (2009). (Accessed 14 July 2023). https://www.cda-amc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/H0462_itc_tr_e.pdf
Google Scholar
10.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE. (2016). (Accessed 14 July 2023). https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/full-list
Google Scholar
11.
Ishak K, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A, Chen C. Novel methods for indirect comparison of treatments: when are they needed and how do they work? Value Outcomes Spotlight. 2016, 20–23 (2016).
Google Scholar
12.
Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm. Pract. (Granada). 15(1), 943 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Es-Skali IJ, Spoors J. Analysis of indirect treatment comparisons in national health technology assessments and requirements for industry submissions. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(4), 397–409 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• This is a review of guidelines and comments from health technology assessment submissions from Europe, Canada and Australia.
14.
Nast A, Dressler C, Schuster C, Saure D, Augustin M, Reich K. Methods used for indirect comparisons of systemic treatments for psoriasis. A systematic review. Skin Health Dis. 3(1), e112 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Afrasiabi K, Linskey ME, Zhou YH. Exploiting cancer's tactics to make cancer a manageable chronic disease. Cancers (Basel). 12(6), 1649 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Branning G. Once-fatal conditions have become chronic: early trends in the FDA's 2015 approvals. Am. Health Drug Benefits. 8(Spec Feature), 167–170 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
de Moor JS, Mariotto AB, Parry C et al. Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 22(4), 561–570 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Hanna E, Rémuzat C, Auquier P, Toumi M. Gene therapies development: slow progress and promising prospect. J. Mark. Access Health Policy. 5(1), 1265293 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Evans SR. Clinical trial structures. J. Exp. Stroke Transl. Med. 3(1), 8–18 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Gamerman V, Cai T, Elsäßer A. Pragmatic randomized clinical trials: best practices and statistical guidance. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 19(1), 23–35 (2019).
Google Scholar
21.
Market Access Transformation. About rapid payer response. Accessed 23 August 2023. https://www.marketaccesstransformation.com/about-rpr
Google Scholar
22.
Hampson G, Towse A, Dreitlein WB, Henshall C, Pearson SD. Real-world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(12), 1133–1143 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Summarizes how real-world evidence is used in the United States, including indirect comparisons in the setting of health technology assessments and payer decision-making.
23.
Wang A, Halbert RJ, Baerwaldt T, Nordyke RJ. US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making. J. Oncol. Pract. 8(Suppl. 3), 22S–27S (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp. Eff. Res. (Auckl). 2, 29–44 (2012).
Google Scholar
25.
Spinner DS, Birt J, Walter JW et al. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 5, 69–85 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Analyzes how different clinical evidence bases affect health technology assessment decision-making by assessing nine case studies. They found that there is considerable variability.
26.
Trueman P, Hurry M, Bending M, Hutton J. The feasibility of harmonizing health technology assessments across jurisdictions: a case study of drug eluting stents. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 25(4), 455–462 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Haute Autorité de santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation – HAS. Accessed 14 July 2023. https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-11/methodological_guidance_2020_-choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf
Google Scholar
28.
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). IQWiG general methods version 6.1. Accessed 14 July 2023. https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/general-methods_version-6-1.pdf
Google Scholar
29.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. Accessed 14 July 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation
Google Scholar
30.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) version 5.0. Accessed 14 July 2023. https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/information/about-the-guidelines.html
Google Scholar
31.
Tanaka S, Igarashi A, De Moor R et al. A targeted review of worldwide indirect treatment comparison guidelines and best practices. Value Health. 27(9), 1179–1190 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Macabeo B, Rotrou T, Millier A, François C, Laramée P. The acceptance of indirect treatment comparison methods in oncology by health technology assessment agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Pharmacoecon. Open. 8(1), 5–18 (2024).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Joint Scientific Consultations (JSC). Accessed 23 August 2023. https://www.eunethta.eu/jsc/
Google Scholar
34.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/21/EU. Accessed 23 August 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R2282&from=EN
Google Scholar
35.
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Enterpreneurs (EUCOPE). Joint Statement Pharmaceutical industry concerns over the implementation of the EU HTA Regulation. Updated October 26, 2022. Accessed 23 August 2023. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/joint-statement-pharmaceutical-industry-concerns-over-the-implementation-of-the-eu-hta-regulation/
Google Scholar
|